Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Mar 2012 19:08 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Some of my recent time has been devoted to making our boot media more Mac friendly, which has entailed rather a lot of rebooting. This would have been fine, if tedious, except that some number of boots would fall over with either a clearly impossible kernel panic or userspace segfaulting in places that made no sense. Something was clearly wrong. Crashes that shouldn't happen are generally an indication of memory corruption. The question is how that corruption is being triggered. Hunting that down wasn't terribly easy." Very interesting - and, unlike what the title suggest, not particularly related to the secure boot stuff.
Thread beginning with comment 511108
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by redshift
by redshift on Mon 19th Mar 2012 16:04 UTC
redshift
Member since:
2006-05-06

OpenFirmware that the PowerPC macs and SUN used worked pretty well (and standardized some of what apple did with custom ROMs prior to OpenFirmware). When Apple moved to Intel, going to bios would have been a step backwards. Since Apple was working closely with Intel, they went with EFI for modern firmware that provided similar features as OpenFirmware. I am not sure if OpenFirmware could have worked in an Intel environment or not, but I am sure Intel was pushing for them to use EFI anyway as a showcase since the PC market was not adopting it as expected.

Apple became a early adopter of EFI in the consumer market. The boot process could be faster by skipping legacy modes and have full access at boot to modern hardware making plug & play much more reliable. liked the idea of EFI... The main downside was that OSes needed to be updated to support it properly.

As EFI has become UEFI... the only part I don't like is SecureBoot. I am concerned that it is better at locking out people from using the OS they want more than securing it from threats.

As for the article. Is giving the WIFI direct DMA access after the OS boots a bug or was that just how a net boot was expected to work?

Edited 2012-03-19 16:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by redshift
by zima on Mon 19th Mar 2012 18:47 in reply to "Comment by redshift"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah yes, what happened to Open Firmware? (and quickly checking out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Firmware then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBIOS#Provided_implementations - x86 implementations seem to be around, even in one somewhat popular machine, OLPC XO-1; so it couldn't be much of a tech issue)

Was there something wrong with it? Anything more than "people aren't used to Forth" (yeah, like we really want run-of-the-mill devs messing around with firmwares) or... "it's not from Intel"?

With Intel & UEFI, it's maybe a bit unfortunate that, when introducing AMD64, AMD didn't kill two birds with one stone (or: roast two meals on one fire, as we would say around here, a more uplifting thing ...hm, though maybe with bird meat, anyway & despite me writing at first "kill two fish..." which didn't sound right)

Reply Parent Score: 3